User talk:Johncoz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Johncoz! I guess I'm the first to post a non-automated edit to your talk page! Welcome to Wikipedia, and welcome to editing the Circumcision article. Your contributions are astute and will no doubt help improve the article. Here's some standard welcome information which may help you get oriented around Wikipedia (though you sound as if you know what you're doing already!)

Welcome!

Hello, Johncoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Coppertwig (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word counts

Thanks for doing the word counts!! Last summer I shortened the Circumcision article (see here if curious) and had to count every word and make tough decisions about what to leave out. It's not the end of the world if it does get a little longer, but I'd rather not have it gradually grow in length and have to be shortened again. And thanks for your draft. It is much more comprehensive than the existing text. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the encouragement, Coppertwig. Had I known what I was getting into I probably would have started my WP experience on a more innocuous topic, like Goat-rearing in Fiji, or something. However, having stepped into the lion's den, I will see it through as best I can. Johncoz (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of the problem

Hi Johncoz. I've had a look at the table you created, and while I think it's excellent (except for China, which is in the Prevalence article), I feel uneasy about including it because I think that this constitutes synthesis (I have to say, however, that I think it's very good synthesis, and I would love to be able to cite this if it were published in a reliable source). I think it might be helpful to get some external opinions at WP:NOR/N, and I wondered if you would help me to prepare a summary. I'd like to include a brief summary of both of our positions. Here's a rough and incomplete draft - could you edit and amend as needed?

  • There is a discussion at Talk:Circumcision about the possible inclusion of a sentence describing the prevalence of circumcision in Eurasia. The sentence in question uses a World Health Organisation map showing prevalence of circumcision by country and religion data from Islam by country. The resulting sentence is: "Excluding majority Muslim countries and Israel, prevalence in Latin America[5] and Eurasia[1] is generally less than 20%[6] with the notable exceptions of..." One point of view is that this constitutes original synthesis, that maps are essentially primary sources as defined by Wikipedia, which we should not attempt to analyse, and that we should instead cite verifiable, albeit less concise interpretations from published sources instead. Another point of view is that ...

Regards, Jakew (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops on China! It was 4am here (Australia), so I was probably getting a little tired. Anyway, here's my initial thoughts on wording:
    • There is a discussion at Talk:Circumcision about the possible inclusion of a sentence describing the prevalence of circumcision in Eurasia. The sentence in question uses a World Health Organisation map showing prevalence of circumcision by country and religion data from Islam by country. The resulting sentence is: "Excluding majority Muslim countries and Israel, prevalence in Latin America[5] and Eurasia[1] is generally less than 20%[6] with the notable exceptions of..." One point of view is that this constitutes original synthesis, that maps are essentially primary sources as defined by Wikipedia, which we should not attempt to analyse, and that we should instead cite verifiable, albeit less concise interpretations from published sources instead. Another point of view is that: 1) this map, whose origin was from a larger document, is a secondary not primary source, being itself a synthesis of a large number of individual studies; 2) the sentence in question is therefore a prose rendering of secondary source information that happens to be presented in graphical form; and 3) is acceptable because there is no dispute about the accuracy of the sentence and that to the extent it may formally transgress WP:SYN this would be permissable under WP:IAR.
Johncoz (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty tired myself now (UK time), but that looks good to me. If you want to add it to the noticeboard, please do (but could you change "that maps are essentially primary sources as defined by" to "that this map is essentially a primary source as defined by"). If not, and if you don't mind, I'll do this tomorrow.
As an aside, this has already been useful in one respect, in that I now understand why you disagree with my assessment that it's a primary source. As I understand the situation, you're saying "it's a secondary source because it is the result of review and synthesis of other work" (and in that sense you're quite right). And I'm saying "it's a primary source because it is basically just data, presented without interpretation or analysis." Jakew (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Johncoz. Image:Smile.png Jakew (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circ Redraft

Good job on the redraft for Circumcision. Your analysis shows the downgrade trend quite clearly, something I felt was not being properly presented. Your addition as a Wikipedian is an added bonus. Welcome. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. I am intending to work on some other parts of the article (and sub-articles) as time permits. Given the amount of time consumed in this 200 words, it could be a long process. Cheers, John Johncoz (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision techniques

Hello, Johncoz. In response to this post of yours, I'd be glad to help summarize sources and present a more comprehensive and worldwide perspective. What is there now seems a high amount of detail on a tiny few procedures used in a minority of cases, with no mention that any other techniques even exist. It's bothered me for a while, but as you say, sources on the subject seem scarce. Anyway, please feel free to involve me whatever way you believe I can help. Blackworm (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)